Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WiFFE vs. MWiF

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> WiFFE vs. MWiF Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 3:23:06 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Didn't see a good forum to put these questions in (and I didn't find the answers using the search function either, I appologize if they are out there somewhere):

Is MWiF going to maintain the physical counter limit and there associated rules (i.e. what to do when you 'run out' of them) regarding the USE markers and partisans? I hope the answer is 'yes', particularly for USE markers.

Will/does MWiF have some sort of 'warning' to newbies regarding the average USE marker (I still want to call them chits...) values? i.e. Being aggressive in 1939 is going to cause more real USE than doing so in 1940? Before an action is taken (e.g. Germany is in the DOW step and is contemplating such...) could the major power be alerted (even if only by text) as to both the USE roll and the average marker value?

How are the rules (rail move costs, eligability for a factory to be rail moved, 'Siberian' deffinition regarding the USSR's PM, USE option 46, etc...) regarding the "physical" board game map breaks being implementd?

Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.

-------
Not an WiFFE vs. MWiF question: Does anyone know if any of the charts have changed since 2002 (RAW 6.02)? It seems as if a few of the counters may have but that seems pretty minor.
Post #: 1
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 4:08:28 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here are some excepts from Rules as Coded (RAC), that answer your questions. There is a thread somewhere in this forum that gives more info on RAC. I have not made this document (a PDF) file generally available, though the beta testers have a copy to review and critique.

For the US Entry makers/chits, they are being selected using a probability dirstribution that change each year (Jan/Feb). You could theoretically draw 20 zeros in a row. If your luck is that bad, you are destined to lose the game anyway.

Tutorials and the player's manual will help new players. One section of the Player's Manual is for what the crucial decisions are and some advaice about how to makle them.


------------------
RAC excepts:
------------------




Foreword

This document is faithful to the Australian Design Group’s World in Flames Final Edition Rules Booklet, commonly known as Rules as Written (RAW). Following in that tradition, the title for this document is Rules as Coded (RAC). It contains changes that reflect the transition of World in Flames (WIF) from paper maps and cardboard counters to a computer screen, with keyboard and mouse. Yet, 98% of the text is directly from RAW. The changes to RAW can be divided into cosmetic, essential, clarifying, and deviations.

Cosmetic
Cosmetic changes were made to improve legibility. RAW was laid out in a compressed black and white format so it could be printed on as few pages as possible. In that, it succeeded admirably, requiring only 64 pages. Since RAC is a PDF file and likely to be read using a computer screen, color and extensive white space have been used to improve clarity. These changes are required to show text on a computer screen, and have the benefit of making printed copies more legible. Of course the down side is that the number of pages in RAC is almost triple the number in RAW.

Color is used sparingly. First, it separates optional rules using a dark red color. Second, it separates examples, using an italicized dark blue. Third, it’s used for points of emphasis - a bold, italicized green. Fourth, a bold blue is used for major section headings and to identify terms that are being defined. Fifth, clarifications are shown using an italicized red. Lastly, deviations from RAW are shown in an italicized purple. Happily, the conversion of the figures from black and white to color adds glitz, while giving accurate pictures of how the map and units appear on the screen.

Essential
Essential changes are few and obvious. There are no paper maps to lay out on a table, nor are there cardboard counters that have to be sorted into groups. Units are not turned over during play. Instead, they have colored indicators around their edges to indicate changes in status. So, rather than ‘face-up’ and ‘face-down’, the words ‘organized’ and ‘disorganized’ are used in RAC. Continuing in that vein, “rolling dice” is replaced by computer generated “random numbers”. Other references to paper elements of the board games, such as the production circle, initiative track, etc. are replaced by references to the informational forms the player can call up and examine whenever he likes.

I also placed the conversion of the multiple paper maps using different scales into a single unified global map as an essential change, [but that’s just me being a programmer]. This resulted in references to off-map boxes and communication lines disappearing. Similarly, special rule sections pertaining to different maps were excised.

Clarifying
One of the challenges of converting World in Flames (WIF) to Matrix Games’ World in Flames (MWIF) was to make the rules absolutely air tight. Rendering rules into software doesn’t permit the luxury of ambiguity. The code will always function precisely the same way, without the advantage (?) of having humans interpret/adjudicate during game play. To achieve this goal, Harry Rowland, from Australian Design Group, answered hundreds of questions that had been raised by experienced WIF players.

Deviations
Though few in number, there are places where RAC distinctly deviates from RAW. The use of the unified world map is far and away the most important. Most other deviations are handled as optional rules. Still, there are some places where I decided to make changes to exploit the capability of the computer. For instance, the computer can generate an infinite number of generic counters, so there is no counter-imposed limit on the number of partisan units. Nor are the US Entry chits drawn from a finite chit pool, but rather from an infinite pool according to a statistical distribution.

Decision making for converting RAW to RAC involved dozens of people and for the most part was based on group consensus. Though, of course, I had the final say, so all errors are mine.

-------------------
1.2 Scale
Units
A land unit represents an army or corps (optional division units represent smaller units, see 22.4.1 and 22.4.2). A naval unit represents a squadron of 4 to 6 destroyers attached to either 1 aircraft carrier, battleship, or heavy cruiser. If playing with the Cruisers in Flames counters, each light cruiser is also represented. An aircraft unit represents 250 aircraft in 1939 gradually increasing to 500 aircraft by 1945. Each counter consists of a variety of types, but with the predominant aircraft being that depicted on the counter. Not all of them would be flying in each mission.

Usually, you are limited by the number of units included in the game, except for convoy points which can be freely broken down or combined, as long as the total points remain the same. [Deviation. The computer also permits an unlimited number of: partisans, fortifications, factories, and infantry-type divisional units. The last is an optional rule which has important restrictions.]

Time
Each game turn is two months.

Map
Each hex in Europe represents approximately 76 kilometers across and on average worldwide represents 89 kilometers across. Because a Mercator projection is used, hexes closer to the poles represent less territory and hexes near the equator represent more territory.

1.3 Markers
[Deviation. You are not limited by the number of generic units in the game except for synthetic oil plants (AfA option 14). This includes unlimited: pilots and offensive, US entry, and neutrality pact chits.]

-------------------------
2.3 Stacking
There is a limit on the number of units that can occupy each hex. This is called the stacking limit of the hex.

2.3.1 Limits
Units that can’t co-operate (see 18.1) can’t stack together in the same hex. They can stack together in the same sea-box. Stacking applies at the end of every step and after advance after combat (see 11.16.5). Stacking also affects how and if units retreat (see 11.16.5). You cannot voluntarily overstack, but if it happens (e.g., due to liberation), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits. You must destroy organized units before disorganized units.

Land unit limits
Up to 2 land units can stack in a hex. AsA/MiF/PoliF options 2, 3 & 6: you can stack 3 land units in a hex if the 3rd unit is a division, artillery or supply unit. [Deviation. Any and all hexsides of a land hex can be fortified, but only one fortification per hexside.] Units invading (see 11.14) and paradropping (see 11.15) have a stacking limit in addition to the defending units’ limit. This limit is applied to the combined number of invading and paradropping units.

-------------------------

Factories
You can rail move any blue factory you control in your home country if:
• an enemy in-supply land unit is currently in that home country, or
• a factory in that home country was destroyed by strategic bombardment during this or the previous turn.

[Deviation. For the USSR, an additional restriction applies. Either both the enemy in-supply land unit and the moving factory’s city of origin are in European USSR or they both are in Siberia (eastern USSR). Similarly, either the destroyed factory and the moving factory’s city of origin are both in European USSR or both in Siberia. The destination for the moving factory can be anywhere in the USSR. Here the European USSR and Siberia are defined by the demarcation line running north-south, three hexes to the east of Stalingrad.]

Factories must always end their rail move at a city hex in their home country. You can never end with more than 2 blue factories in one city.

The railed factory is not available for production until the 2nd turn after it finishes its move. For example, if you move it in Jan/Feb, it starts producing again in May/Jun.

Option 12: (Limited access across straits) A unit can’t rail move across a straits hexside if the presence of enemy units would prevent you tracing an overseas supply path into that sea area (see 2.4.2).

Limits
If you chose an air action, you can only rail move aircraft units. If you chose a land action, you can only rail move land units and factories. If you chose a combined action you can rail move factories, land units, and/or aircraft units.

[Deviation.
The number of hexes the unit traverses determines the number of rail moves it expends:
Hex Distance Land or Aircraft Unit Factory Unit
1 - 60 hexes 1 rail move 2 rail moves
61 - 120 hexes 2 rail moves 3 rail moves
121 + hexes 3 rail moves 4 rail moves]

The hex distance calculation is the number of hexes traversed by passing through rail hexsides.

Rail moves do not also count as a land move or an air mission.






_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 2
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 4:44:16 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Shannon, thanks for the information!

I presume the charts/probabilites will be made available for the players to view somewhere (i.e. DOW vs. Spain will provide a x% of getting a USE marker and the USE markers have a distrubution chance of .... in 1939, .... in 1940, etc...)

I don't have any qualms with the RAC differences from the RAW, except for the USE markers.  I believe you can't help but change the statistical probabilities and the somewhat self-correcting effect of a limited marker supply.

In particular the WiFFE effect of adding in the next year's markers is a relatively *big* deal.  I've seen in some games aggresive Axis players decide to 'slow down' a bit, or even decide not to take garrison markers (note the rules say 'can' not 'must' draw garrison chits) so as to not be forced to pick from the next year's higher average chits (for USE).

How are you determing yearly marker values?  In games where the rolls don't pull many markers those high average 1939 markers are still available to show up when the low value 1940 markers are still there.  Conversly, if a lot of markers got picked in 1939 then the chances of getting lower value 1940 markers (when they're added to the pool) goes way up.

But I'm guessing you've heard this arguement already and have decided to dismiss it. 

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 3
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 6:41:05 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Shannon, thanks for the information!

I presume the charts/probabilites will be made available for the players to view somewhere (i.e. DOW vs. Spain will provide a x% of getting a USE marker and the USE markers have a distrubution chance of .... in 1939, .... in 1940, etc...)

I don't have any qualms with the RAC differences from the RAW, except for the USE markers.  I believe you can't help but change the statistical probabilities and the somewhat self-correcting effect of a limited marker supply.

In particular the WiFFE effect of adding in the next year's markers is a relatively *big* deal.  I've seen in some games aggresive Axis players decide to 'slow down' a bit, or even decide not to take garrison markers (note the rules say 'can' not 'must' draw garrison chits) so as to not be forced to pick from the next year's higher average chits (for USE).

How are you determing yearly marker values?  In games where the rolls don't pull many markers those high average 1939 markers are still available to show up when the low value 1940 markers are still there.  Conversly, if a lot of markers got picked in 1939 then the chances of getting lower value 1940 markers (when they're added to the pool) goes way up.

But I'm guessing you've heard this arguement already and have decided to dismiss it. 

As your examples show, using a finite pool leads to gamesmanship. And yes, you are not the first to prefer the "old way".

My background in simulation makes me look for something in the real world that the design/model is attempting to simulate. I could find nothing to justify the finite pool, and the rationalizations for mixing the US Entry amrkers with the garrison markers between USSR-Japan were very,... well, the less I say about that the better probably.

In the work-a-day world of simulation drawing samples from an infinite pool is standard, with a finite pool only being used when reality demands it (one of my first programming assignments for statistical modelijng was for drawing from a finite sample - but that was precisely what was happening in real life).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 4
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 10:55:14 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
How are you determing yearly marker values?  In games where the rolls don't pull many markers those high average 1939 markers are still available to show up when the low value 1940 markers are still there.  Conversly, if a lot of markers got picked in 1939 then the chances of getting lower value 1940 markers (when they're added to the pool) goes way up.

Good question.
In 1940, are some chits from 1939 still left ?
In 1941, are some chits from 1939 and 1940 still left ?
This is important, as you can draw a big chit from 1939 in 1940, or a small chit of 1940 in 1941.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 5
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 3:35:55 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Hey Shannon,
You didn't answer the question about what the yearly averages are (as evidenced by Froonp's follow up).  :P

You could code something like:

If (year = 1939) & (X < Z) then use 1939 average marker value, else use 1940 average marker value.

where:
X = Number of USE markers in the GE/IT & JA pools
Z = Number of markers 'reserved' for USE after taking out the standard amount of Garrison values.

Of course it would get more complicated in later years.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 6
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 8:38:24 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Hey Shannon,
You didn't answer the question about what the yearly averages are (as evidenced by Froonp's follow up).  :P

You could code something like:

If (year = 1939) & (X < Z) then use 1939 average marker value, else use 1940 average marker value.

where:
X = Number of USE markers in the GE/IT & JA pools
Z = Number of markers 'reserved' for USE after taking out the standard amount of Garrison values.

Of course it would get more complicated in later years.

I have posted the code several times previously. Though I haven't a clue where that might be. The probability distributions are based on the WIF FE markers for the current year aggregated with all previous years. The value of markers previously drawn are never considered.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 7
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 8:54:03 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Note that the change from a finite pool to an infinite pool for USE chits, I believe, has been sanctioned by Harry Rowland.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 8
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/28/2008 9:38:08 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Fair enough.

I did say I tried to find it with search function.  So I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 9
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/31/2008 7:06:39 PM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.


My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step), but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 10
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/31/2008 7:51:23 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.


My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step),

True.

quote:

but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.

True with a strict reading of the rule.
But one can also suppose that the original intend of the designer was that it was possible, and the necessary memory exercice in a game with 6000 counters made him rule otherwise so that the board game stays playable.
The Computer game can remember each of the move of each of the units, so it can remember that a particular unit has movement point left, and allow you to move it again. Steve has taken precautions so that this can't be abused.
Also, remember that it is working like this since the earliest days of CWiF, CWiF who was then in the sole hands of ADG as a design team.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 11
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/31/2008 8:13:08 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.


My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step),

True.

quote:

but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.

True with a strict reading of the rule.
But one can also suppose that the original intend of the designer was that it was possible, and the necessary memory exercice in a game with 6000 counters made him rule otherwise so that the board game stays playable.
The Computer game can remember each of the move of each of the units, so it can remember that a particular unit has movement point left, and allow you to move it again. Steve has taken precautions so that this can't be abused.
Also, remember that it is working like this since the earliest days of CWiF, CWiF who was then in the sole hands of ADG as a design team.

Exchanging units between two fully stacked hexes when no third hex is available is tricky to code. I do not know if the CWIF code permits this. I do want this to be possible, and so I'll make it possible.

What I want to enable in regard to units in supply, is that supply for movement is determined when a unit moves.

If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

I haven't decided which way to go.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 12
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/31/2008 8:18:23 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66
Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.


My impression is the direct opposite, that it IS legeal to directly swap units (since the stacking limit is only enforces at the end of the step),

True.

quote:

but it is NOT legal to temporarily move a unit to a hex (for instance moving an HQ to temorarily put units in supply), and then, after moving those units, continue to spend the last movement points of the HQ.

True with a strict reading of the rule.
But one can also suppose that the original intend of the designer was that it was possible, and the necessary memory exercice in a game with 6000 counters made him rule otherwise so that the board game stays playable.
The Computer game can remember each of the move of each of the units, so it can remember that a particular unit has movement point left, and allow you to move it again. Steve has taken precautions so that this can't be abused.
Also, remember that it is working like this since the earliest days of CWiF, CWiF who was then in the sole hands of ADG as a design team.

Exchanging units between two fully stacked hexes when no third hex is available is tricky to code. I do not know if the CWIF code permits this. I do want this to be possible, and so I'll make it possible.

It is not possible in CWiF. CWiF imposes stacking ALL the time, not only at step's end like RAW says.

quote:

What I want to enable in regard to units in supply, is that supply for movement is determined when a unit moves.

Which is RAW.

quote:

If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

I haven't decided which way to go.

I'd simply go with 3.
A message would say why the "undoing" is prevented, saying that another move was made thanks to this one, and that as a consequence this one can't be undone. The player will have to find the exact reason.
You can also highlight the unit that prevents the undoing too, but anything that adds work inthis domain seems not necessary to me.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 3/31/2008 8:19:36 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 13
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 3/31/2008 9:46:25 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 14
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/1/2008 4:52:27 AM   
Norman42


Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.



That sounds like the easiest and simplest way to handle it.


_____________________________

-------------

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 15
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/1/2008 5:18:38 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Fair enough.

I did say I tried to find it with search function.  So I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves.


No nerves gotten on here - I just have a bad habit of being on break at work when I go through these forums, so I might come across as being a bit short (since I am... short on time, anyway).

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 16
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 1:20:34 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Hmnn... I saw "You can't voluntarily overstack."  Implies you can't do it, but I guess if you only check at the end of the phase, you can.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 17
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 3:06:24 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Hmnn... I saw "You can't voluntarily overstack."  Implies you can't do it, but I guess if you only check at the end of the phase, you can.

If it helps, imagine holding a pair of tweezers in each hand and picking up a unit from each stack and then swapping their locations.

As I say whenever doing card tricks "Watch closely, my fingers never leave my hands!".

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 18
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 6:45:37 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
I'm just commenting on how the rules are written... it can be interpreted either way.  As I said before we never played that you couldn't.  It's only my incorrect rereading of the rules (as I haven't done such since RAW 6.01).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 19
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 9:08:07 AM   
hakon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.


I think it would allow for smoother play if you present a message like "3 that were placed in supply by the move you are trying to undo. Undoing this move will also undo the moves of those 3 units. Do you want to proceed (Y/N)?".

Do you plan to allow for undoing naval moves, too? In that case there is the complicating siutatons of placing a unit in suply (with a cp, for instance), and then moving that unit. If that units is then subject to an interception roll, undoing the move of that unit or the one that placed it in supply may be tricky.

Cheers
Hakon

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 20
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 10:47:10 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.


I think it would allow for smoother play if you present a message like "3 that were placed in supply by the move you are trying to undo. Undoing this move will also undo the moves of those 3 units. Do you want to proceed (Y/N)?".

Do you plan to allow for undoing naval moves, too? In that case there is the complicating siutatons of placing a unit in suply (with a cp, for instance), and then moving that unit. If that units is then subject to an interception roll, undoing the move of that unit or the one that placed it in supply may be tricky.

Cheers
Hakon

Undoing naval moves is pretty much out of the question since the enemy has the choice of intercepting.

The specifics are:
Once the possibility of intercepting a naval move occurs, regardless of whether the enemy decides to intercept or not, no naval move that was made previously can be undone.

EDIT: As for undoing the moves for the player, I would prefer not to. This is part of my bias against automation. If the player has to undo the move(s) himself, then he will know exactly what happens. Having the computer undo moves on behalf of the player runs the risk that the player will be unaware of what exactly took place.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 4/2/2008 10:50:08 AM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hakon)
Post #: 21
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 11:39:56 AM   
Jimm


Posts: 608
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The specifics are:
Once the possibility of intercepting a naval move occurs, regardless of whether the enemy decides to intercept or not, no naval move that was made previously can be undone.

EDIT: As for undoing the moves for the player, I would prefer not to. This is part of my bias against automation. If the player has to undo the move(s) himself, then he will know exactly what happens. Having the computer undo moves on behalf of the player runs the risk that the player will be unaware of what exactly took place.


This seems to make option 2 (above) preferable, doesnt it?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 22
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 12:00:05 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
If unit X was in supply because another unit Y had already moved in the impulse (Y could have been an HQ, but could also have been another land unit that enabled X's supply path to pass through an enemy ZOC), then ...
1. I want to prevent the enabling unit Y's move from being undone should unit X decide to move.
2. I could either do that by telling the player that moving X 'fixes' unit Y's move (Y's move can no longer be undone if you move X), or
3. Return unit X to its starting position if unit Y's move is undone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The specifics are:
Once the possibility of intercepting a naval move occurs, regardless of whether the enemy decides to intercept or not, no naval move that was made previously can be undone.

EDIT: As for undoing the moves for the player, I would prefer not to. This is part of my bias against automation. If the player has to undo the move(s) himself, then he will know exactly what happens. Having the computer undo moves on behalf of the player runs the risk that the player will be unaware of what exactly took place.


This seems to make option 2 (above) preferable, doesnt it?

There has been a lot of discussion on this over a period of a couple of years and I am not sure if I have a full understanding of all the possibilities. In the post you quoted, I obviously put a damper on other suggestions I didn't really mean to do that.

This is always a problem for me: when I inject my viewpoint into a discussion it comes across as a definitive position statement, rather than just another viewpoint. I make a lot of mistakes and I am rather insensitive to criticism, so having people state that I am wrong is not a problem for me. But cultural norms drive many decisions people make about posting their thoughts.

In this case the list of possible solutions is still open.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 23
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 2:03:56 PM   
bredsjomagnus

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Im sorry if this is a bit of topic but I just got a small shock and I just had to ask....

quote:

Rereading the land movement rules I just realized that it is illegal to allow 2 stacks to directly 'swap' units with each other (They would need a 3rd hex at least). Will MWiF prevent this as well? Not sure how I feel about it, I've played this wrong since for ever.


Can´t you do that!!??

but...

quote:

2.3.1 Limits
Units that can’t co-operate (see 18.1) can’t stack together in the same hex. They can stack together in the same sea-box. Stacking applies at the end of every step and after advance after combat (see 11.16.5). Stacking also affects how and if units retreat (see 11.16.5). You cannot voluntarily overstack, but if it happens (e.g., due to liberation), the owner of the hex must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits. You must destroy organized units before disorganized units.


...doesn´t that make it possible to swap positon without a third hex??

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 24
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 4:55:56 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok.

If Undoing X will affects the supply status of Y at the start of Y's movement, and Y has already moved, then I'll present the message:
"You can not undo this move for 'X' unless you first undo the move for 'Y'. Since this just affects land moves, the two units won't be that far apart on the map; the player should be able to find Y without much trouble.


*whisper* Naval/overseas supply. Granted, the movement of naval units does not usually occur at the same exact phase/time you are moving your land units, but it can still happen in the same impulse...

Maybe I should crawl back to my lurking hole. i see you've already caught that.

< Message edited by mlees -- 4/2/2008 4:57:27 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 25
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/2/2008 11:07:17 PM   
Jimm


Posts: 608
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There has been a lot of discussion on this over a period of a couple of years and I am not sure if I have a full understanding of all the possibilities. In the post you quoted, I obviously put a damper on other suggestions I didn't really mean to do that.

This is always a problem for me: when I inject my viewpoint into a discussion it comes across as a definitive position statement, rather than just another viewpoint. I make a lot of mistakes and I am rather insensitive to criticism, so having people state that I am wrong is not a problem for me. But cultural norms drive many decisions people make about posting their thoughts.

In this case the list of possible solutions is still open.


Good to know. One doesnt want to keep a debate going once a decision is made, and after all we have to defer to you as this is not a democracy, its a benevolent dictatorship :-)

The three areas this seems to affect are Naval Air, Naval Movement and Land Movement. These are all self contained, ie naval movement will only affect supply to naval units (for instance where you need to move a ship in to a sea area to contest it in order to allow suppy to a port containing another of your ships. As you wont undo anything once a step is complete and moved on, the supply effect of the step has been set in stone so its not an issue.

Option 11 (Limited Overseas Supply) will be even more relevant, but again, only to nav air and naval movement within each respective step.

If you cant undo any naval moves once an interception chance occurs (which seems reasonable), this effectively seems to follow option 2- ie once a move affects other things it is committed to and cannot be undone.

You also might consider the question, do you want to allow undoing moves at all, once they have been made? Seems a bit harsh but would save some code...











(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 26
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/3/2008 1:47:19 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
On the issue of retracting land moves you could make your life easier by simply offering only 2 options: 'retract last land move' and 'retract all land moves'.  I suppose (if it wasn't much of a burden) you could stack a memory of multiple 'last land move' up to the point where a land move changes the status of another unit and then allow multiple 'retract last land move' like the 'undo' option in windows.


(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 27
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/3/2008 1:50:17 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
bredsjomagnus:

See post #17.  That was my misinterpretating the rules.  The rule saying you can't voluntarily overstack is in a different paragraph so it can be interpreted (incorrectly) that it applies at all times.  Note this (incorrect interpretation) would also stop a naval unit from moving through a minor port that was already filled up to capacity as well.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 28
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/3/2008 4:02:14 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22035
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

On the issue of retracting land moves you could make your life easier by simply offering only 2 options: 'retract last land move' and 'retract all land moves'.  I suppose (if it wasn't much of a burden) you could stack a memory of multiple 'last land move' up to the point where a land move changes the status of another unit and then allow multiple 'retract last land move' like the 'undo' option in windows.



The program already records all the hexes that the unit passes through, even after it has completed its move. Undoing the move isn't difficult except where it interacts with the rules.

I intend to let the player move some units based on an HQ's starting position putting them in supply; move the HQ a couple of hexes so new units are on supply; move the units that were just put in supply; and then continue moving the HQ to put more units in supply. As long as the HQ is not Undoing its move, I am interpreting the rules as this all being quite legal.

I mention this because "retract last move" could interpretted several ways.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 29
RE: WiFFE vs. MWiF - 4/3/2008 4:43:50 AM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1567
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
I did say "retract last land move"  and by that I mean put the unit back in its starting position.  I do think a "retract all land moves" ability (i.e. put yourself back to the start of the land movement step) would resolve about 66% of the problems.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> WiFFE vs. MWiF Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.363